To what extent is the omnipotence of God logically coherent. (40 marks)

To what extent is the omnipotence of God logically coherent. (40 marks)

When we assess the extent to which the omnipotence of God is logically coherent, we are trying to define omnipotence. If the word is coherent, logical and verifiable, we can use it to describe entities in our environment if and when we happen to encounter them. However, if the word Is incoherent and illogical it means that we can’t use the word to meaningfully describe things. Defining omnipotence is a difficult task seeing that it results in a paradox if we are not careful. Originally, the term omnipotence when applied to God meant that God can do literally anything. The problem with this definition is that it does not define what “anything” is. In this essay I will attempt to show that the omnipotence of God is logically coherent having first understood what we mean by “omnipotent”. I will be using scholars such as Descartes, Anselm, Augustine, Swinburne and Aquinas to show that omnipotence is a logically coherent idea.

The idea of omnipotence is a key part of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. This is because they used this aspect of God as a method of advertising their faith. If God truly did create from ex nihilo then surely, he is omnipotent. He is capable of creating from his voice which to this day is impossible for us to do. The statement speaks of a Christian deity. The bible shows that God has certain characteristics like omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent and Omni benevolence. As well as questioning the omnipotence of God, we should also consider his existence. Is the idea of God a logically coherent idea to speak of? God cannot be known to the senses if we cannot experience God how can we argue that he exists. If he cannot be known empirically, is it logically coherent to talk about his characteristics if we do not personally know him. For argument sake even if we were to argue that he does exist and that he is omnipotent, we would not be able to prove it. And if he were omnipotent his omnipotence would be riddled with problems. In the Bible the power of God is shown in various texts. In Mark 10:27 we are told, “with man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God”. This shows the strength of God.

Descartes, the great philosopher argues that God can do absolutely anything, including the impossible and the self-contradictory. According to Descartes God has no limits meaning that he can create a square circle and make 2+2=5. Descartes argues that God is the source of logic meaning that he has the power to suspend logic or to replace it whenever he pleases. This definition of omnipotence is called absolutism. Descartes rejected other definitions of God’s omnipotence since he believed that these put a limit on God’s greatness and honour. By saying that God has limitation we are inferring that he is at the mercy of some restrictions. This Goes against Anselm’s ontological argument which suggests that “God is that which nothing greater could be thought of”. Descartes further argues that god is capable of committing evil, but he is incapable due to his Good and loving Nature. Most philosopher have argued that this is a logical contradiction, how can he be able and unable at the same time. Descartes closes up this loop hole by arguing that God can be self-contradictory because he is all powerful. The only reason we cannot comprehend this idea is because we are too smallminded and limited by ourselves. In Romans 11:33 we are told “Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways! For who can know the Lord’s thoughts?” this shows that through God anything is possible whether we are able to comprehend it or not.

The problem with absolutism is that it is a terrible form of omnipotence as it is riddled with problems. If we use Descartes definition of omnipotence, God seems unreliable and unpredictable. However, It could be argued that this is not true or a possibility. In Numbers 23:19 we are told, “God is not human that he should lie, not a human being that he should change his mind”. This shows that we can rely on him since he is not like us, he does not have a weakness of will, and his nature is good.  Some philosophers argue that absolutism makes it impossible for people to have a relationship with God or to trust in him for salvation. This view makes it impossible to justify God in the face of evil and suffering. Irenaeus, Augustine and John Hick have suggested that God cannot act differently than the way he does without depriving us of our freewill. If Descartes and Anselm are right meaning that God could create a world within which we have freewill, but we don’t have to suffer but he chooses not to, then surely he is not omnibenevolent since he is making us suffer without justification.  However, Augustine argues that God created our universe perfectly and that pain and suffering exist because of original sin and the fall. This infers that we need to suffer and accept pain as a punishment for we did this to ourselves meaning that God is being Just by not acting, which is with in his nature. Another problem with absolutism is language, what do we mean by anything? Can God do what is logically impossible? For Descartes the answer is yes. However, this leads to a paradox of omnipotence. But, if we alter the definition of omnipotence all the problems disappear resulting in a more logical definition.

Another definition of omnipotence is that God has the ability to do all that is logically possible. If I can imagine a logical possibility where I can pile up rocks until it gets too heavy for me to lift, I am fulfilling the statement, “unliftable by its own maker” because I am able to do this task then surely God is more than capable. However, a problem with this statement is that it creates a paradox of omnipotence. If God cannot create a rock which fulfils the statement “unliftable by its maker”, he is not omnipotent but if he cannot lift it he must also not be omnipotent. Another example is driving a car, because we as humans can drive cars then surely God being omnipotent must also be able to do it. This idea has evolved from the idea that God should be able to do everything that we can do and more, if he cannot, he is not all powerful. As a human being, I am capable of lying, this means that God should also be able to lie, however, in the bible we are told that “it is impossible for God to lie”. This leads us to believe that if God cannot accomplish human task how can we call him capable. This also creates the problem of language, we do not know whether it is outside of his nature to lie, he does not want to lie, he prevents himself from lying or whether he is incapable of lying. The word “impossible” makes a bold statement in trying to show that God is moral, yet it accidentally ends up anthropomorphising him by implicating that he has limits. This contradicts with Anselm’s idea that “God is which nothing greater could be thought of”. If God has limits, it infers that there is a greater being somewhere. This illustrates that no being can ever possibly earn the title omnipotent because the very act of proving it requires them not to have it.

This leads us to another definition of omnipotence, some have argued that omnipotence means that God has the ability to do all that is consistent with his “essential nature” and which is logically possible. Because it was in his kind nature and because it was logically possible, God promised Sahara a child even in her old age, when she did not believe the good news she is told, “Is anything too hard for God?” this implies that God is capable of all logical things. This is further shown in Genesis when God creates then world with his voice. This shows his strength and power. If he is possible of creating life, then surely he is omnipotent. This explains that the God of Christianity cannot lie because it contradicts his perfect nature not because he is uncapable. God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with his nature since that would imply a contradiction. God is incorporeal meaning that he is perfectly good like Plato’s form of the Good therefore cannot deceive or do any other form of evil. Similarly, in his book Summa Theological Aquinas argues that God is omnipotent because “he can do everything that is absolutely possible” and “everything that does not imply a contradiction is among these possibilities in respect of which God is called omnipotent”. Here Aquinas is arguing that God can do anything logically possible but if it is not logically possible then it cannot be done even by God. Swinburne furthers this argument by suggesting that God can do anything but not the logically impossible because impossible things aren’t things. For example, a married bachelor is not a thing meaning that God cannot create one.

On the other hand, modern definitions of omnipotence have tackled the problem of language and the paradox of omnipotence. Peter Vardy argues that God deliberately limits his omnipotence so that we can live as free rational beings. If God did not limit himself, our universe would not exist in the way that it does now. Similarly, Macquarie argues that God’s limitations are self-imposed. He argues that God is not constrained by logic but rather limits his own power out of love for us. This idea combines Descartes ideas as well as Vardy’s ideas. These definitions are complimentary to God as they do not anthropomorphise him, instead they show that he is all mighty and powerful.

In conclusion, the omnipotence of God is logically coherent. This is because although there are multiple definitions the omnipotence of God is easy to understand once we get rid of the problem of language and the paradox of omnipotence. According to Anselm’s definition God must be eternal because if he is omnipotent he must be able to control time and space. On the other hand, an everlasting God cannot be omnipotent because he himself is under the restriction of time and space. This would also mean that he would not be “that which nothing greater could be thought of” because he must be unchangeable and timeless to be omnipotent. This shows that there are a lot of factors to consider in order to make sense of the omnipotence of God.